It depends on how you define morality. My understanding of morality is that good equates to the well being of conscious minds, while bad equates to the suffering of conscious minds. So the moral path to take in every situation is the one that causes the least suffering and results in the highest state of well being. So no, morality in this sense is not subjective.

Then I have to define what I mean by the well being of conscious minds. This should be obvious but I'll spell it out with an example for you people (trolls) that don't get it.
Would you rather have your hand on a extremely hot frying pan for ten minutes, or on a room temperature one?
Obviously, thanks to evolution, the conscious mind interprets pain as a negative experience. So this is considered suffering while a pleasant feeling (So long as it is not damaging to our physical health) is considered to benefit the conscious minds well being.

Perhaps you could say you believe that the suffering of conscious minds is actually a good thing. Then I would just call you a psychopath and be done with it.

Your trying to say morality is subjective and that only God can give us a true moral code. Well which version of god's true moral code are we to use? The bible's? then perhaps the majority of people on this forum should be stoned to death. Also, when your kids curse at you or hit you, your morally obligated to stone them to death. Maybe I do fancy this idea, I can keep you both as slaves, and beat you to near death whenever I wish. Maybe then you would have sense enough to know it was a horrible idea.

(08-01-2013 09:37 PM)Aspchizo Wrote: It depends on how you define morality. My understanding of morality is that good equates to the well being of conscious minds, while bad equates to the suffering of conscious minds. So the moral path to take in every situation is the one that causes the least suffering and results in the highest state of well being. So no, morality in this sense is not subjective.

Then I have to define what I mean by the well being of conscious minds. This should be obvious but I'll spell it out with an example for you people (trolls) that don't get it.
Would you rather have your hand on a extremely hot frying pan for ten minutes, or on a room temperature one?
Obviously, thanks to evolution, the conscious mind interprets pain as a negative experience. So this is considered suffering while a pleasant feeling (So long as it is not damaging to our physical health) is considered to benefit the conscious minds well being.

Perhaps you could say you believe that the suffering of conscious minds is actually a good thing. Then I would just call you a psychopath and be done with it.

Your trying to say morality is subjective and that only God can give us a true moral code. Well which version of god's true moral code are we to use? The bible's? then perhaps the majority of people on this forum should be stoned to death. Also, when your kids curse at you or hit you, your morally obligated to stone them to death. Maybe I do fancy this idea, I can keep you both as slaves, and beat you to near death whenever I wish. Maybe then you would have sense enough to know it was a horrible idea.

(09-01-2013 11:56 AM)namiloveyou Wrote: morality is anything one makes it to be.

Same with love, hate, and teacups. These are all labels for real things, morality is no different.

Quote:Psychopathy is only "bad" due to what pop culture says, little else.

Were evolved enough to know that these things are wrong. People that do not know these things are wrong without a god telling them so (like yourself) have a few loose bolts and are called psychopaths.

If the population is slowly shifting into a mass of psychopaths, then a lot of people will die, potentially everyone. But as of now, were are moral enough to not care about human suffering.

Moral Scale
Suffering <---------------------------------------------------------> Well Being

the biggest debates in morality arise from religious beliefs of people that think only a god should give us morals. This is just flat out wrong, and childish. We aren't debating what it means to love, or hate like we debate this.

There is no absolute morality, but everyone (with the exception of you people) understands that choosing the path towards well being is the best path.

Based on your replies, I'm going to assume you have no real argument besides "Because I said so", which just so happens to be what Christians use for debates about god, so I assume your a Christian, in which case there really isn't much point in bringing this any further.

OP, is simple change in *world* culture. Now that enough people have begun to care that gays are discriminated against, the contrary opinion is subject to more pressure.

It's not *just* that though. As humans we have a certain desire to see fair play. The justification for treating gays (or indeed any group) differently, is usually based off complete horseshit arguments. No one's honest enough to say 'well I just hate gays so that's why I want to discriminate against them and stop treading on my right to do so', they all come up with some reason like 'well, my religion says it's wrong so it's perfectly OK for me to tell people *who don't believe my religion* that they must not be gay'.

Fuck that. A leader isn't some magic guy - he's just like any one of us. So we want leaders who improve our lives, who play fair. If they force their own stupid agendas on people, then the march of progress will eventually sweep them away, and there's no need to waste sympathy on them.

Morality can generally be understood in terms of value statements such as the minimisation of suffering and/or maximisation of happiness, but one should be cautious not to jump the gun and impose moral choices by force. A given state of a society can be characterised as being more or less moral based on suffering/happiness criteria, but one cannot simply point to a better place on the scale and say jump. Transitions between different social conventions can have their own suffering/happiness impacts and both the end point and the path to the end point should seek to minimise overall suffering and maximise happiness. Moreover the concept of liberty is important as taking away personal liberty, the liberty of local or state government etc can negatively affect the moral outcome by constraining maximal happiness and imposing unnecessary suffering.

It is better to convince a person to change their view than it is to force them into compliance. It is better to work with existing power structures within a society (if they can be persuaded) than to try and replace those structures.

International pressure on the subject of homosexuality is a slightly tricky issue. The better moral position would be to allow homosexuals their natural liberties. However, we don't want to topple existing power structures to do so, and we don't want to set up a situation where local politicians gain greater traction and greater power by setting themselves up as moral defenders against the west. What we want is for the dawning realisations in the West to spread through the power of persuasion so that our improved happiness and reduced suffering can be found elsewhere. That said, much of the anti-gay movement in Africa that is happening at the political level seems to actually be driven from the west. Right wing conservatives are seeking to use Africa as a proving ground in order to demonstrate to the people back home that their ideas are feasible. Actions to try and limit the negative impacts of these bills can be seen simply as undoing some of the damage done by western radicals.

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.